« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | A shocking crime story »

Must Reads

Don't miss Charles Krauthammer on the Democrats' decision to focus on Afghanistan, rather than Iraq in the war on terror.

Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

Another must read today is John Hawkins' Ten Questions for Al Gore and the Global Warming Crowd. In it he explains why he is skeptical that man is causing global warming and lists a few questions to share with your liberal friends.

It's because "the Earth-is-going-to-burn-us-alive" crowd cannot answer the most basic questions about the theory that they haughtily insist is so beyond reproach that there should be no more need for debate. In fact, the most ironic thing about the global warming argument is that Al Gore and Company have declared that it's settled, but they have to use scary stories about cities being flooded a hundred years from now and fake tales about polar bears drowning to sell it. If they're on such rock solid scientific ground, why doesn't the science speak for itself? Does anyone remember Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein trying to get people to buy into their scientific theories by coming up with doomsday scenarios? No, of course not.

Despite that, like most conservatives, I'm open minded and could be convinced that mankind is responsible for causing global warming -- but with science, not scaremongering. If the proponents of the manmade global warming theory can come up with good answers to questions like these, you can expect everyone, including me, to accept their theory:

In an earlier post I said that Rosie is insane, or something close to it. Here is an excerpt from my column on the topic of Rosie as news media outlet.

Viewers getting their news from morning "news" shows like "Today" or "Good Morning America" must surely believe they can rely on the information they get. After all, the news departments from the networks play a role in the programs.

Similarly, viewers of ABC's "The View" certainly must believe the information presented on a program co-owned, co-produced and co-hosted by Barbara Walters would be reliable. For years there has been a liberal slant to the opening round table "Hot Topics" segment of the program, but recently with the addition of Rosie O'Donnell the slant has turned into outright misinformation and propaganda - all with the Barbara Walters stamp of approval.

For years there was not a conservative voice to be heard in the "hot topics" discussions on "The View." Now there is at least one conservative voice in Elizabeth Hasselbeck, but she is often either not up to speed on the topic being discussed or is shouted down or bullied by the loud and obnoxious O'Donnell. Often incorrect information is presented by co-host Joy Behar or O'Donnell and is not disputed or even questioned.

Many readers have noted that Rosie is a good example of an unhinged liberal and as such it is a good thing that she is acting as a spokesperson for liberalism. That is a good point, but I fear even those who think she has gone off the deep end believe much of the supposed "news" she recites on The View. It is incredibly irresponsible for Barbara Walters and ABC to allow her to continue to spread such misinformation to such a wide audience.

Update: There is a good discussion thread on the Rosie column at Lucianne.

Hannity & Colmes will run a Rosie montage tonight.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Must Reads:

» Asymmetric linked with Must Reads

Comments (56)

"One is in Afghanistan, a g... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. " Kraut.

Yea, and 9/11 was only a myth!

"If they're on such rock so... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"If they're on such rock solid scientific ground, why doesn't the science speak for itself?"

That statement is just laughable. Why not use Galileo as the example or Darwin?

There are many example throughout history, particularly western Christian, where science was repressed. Anyone hear of the dark ages?

Christian bigotry still exists today and with global warming. Rush stated so himself. He does not believe that man could change god's work. Therefore, global warming could not possible be 'created' by man.

"The other is in Iraq, one... (Below threshold)
groucho:

"The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth,..."

Finally, an allusion to the truth about the "War on Terror" in Iraq.

Everybody take notice now b... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Everybody take notice now because you just heard it from the two village idiot above.

jhow66: Thanks for being th... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

jhow66: Thanks for being there. I had fears this might have been an all-troll Friday.

Maybe we should buy Elizabe... (Below threshold)
Lonevoice:

Maybe we should buy Elizabeth a MEGAPHONE, so she can tell Rosie to STFU. Failing that, she could just beat her with it.....

I don't know why gas prices... (Below threshold)

I don't know why gas prices are so high if we now have Iraq's oil - but clearly logic doesn't apply to sock puppets!

Lorie - your article at Townhall.com was brilliant, as always. I have linked to it from my site.

Have a great weekend.

1) The neocon Erasmus sends... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

1) The neocon Erasmus sends for Martian support to buttress his argument. Martian demurrs.

2) Fat nerd as Al Gore sattelite.

3) Lorie tacitly admits that Bushbots aren't too bright and shouldn't cross the informational street.

BarenyG- I think you meant-... (Below threshold)
Kat:

BarenyG- I think you meant- "Anti-Christian bigotry still exists today and with global warming."
The only acceptable group to insult anymore, at least for your ilk, is Christian. You chickenGlobalWarmerHawks should try that crap in Tehran with Ahmed and his boys. You and your boyfriend along with Rosie and her girl, could saunter down Main singing Kumbaya and see what happens.

Barney, in the examples of ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Barney, in the examples of Galileo and Darwin, they had theories and sound science to back them up that elitists did not accept. With Global Warming(TM) you have scientists with theories and absolutely NO SCIENCE to back them up being universally accepted by the elite. So, yes, they are good analogies how idiots like you refuse to actually believe in science, though I doubt that was the conclusion you were looking for.

Yes Brainy, the scientific ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Yes Brainy, the scientific community is just a bunch of sheep that can't read a research report.

Kat, you are almost right. I should have wrote Christians are science bigots. Do you really believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

If Afghanistan held any sig... (Below threshold)
groucho:

If Afghanistan held any significant oil reserves, you can bet we'd be sending more of our young people to die there as well. I have no problem acknowledging the strategic importance of the Middle East, based chiefly on oil, and think we need to have a presence over there. I just disagree with the invasion and occupation of a country, igniting a civil war and attempting to justify it by a bunch of poor excuses like WMD and spreading freedom. Problem is, they couldn't have sold it without the hype. Now our foreign policy wizards have succeeded in destabilizing the region, making more enemies and providing the terrorists who have flocked there with their own little shooting gallery/training ground.

brainy436: "universally acc... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

brainy436: "universally accepted by the elite"
ooo! la dee dah!

The climate has always had heating and cooling cycles not influenced by man, and man's influence today is very minimal, but when the get-along gang staked their pride on "no global warming" AT ALL (Rushbo), and then winter is reduced to 3 weeks this year, panic sets in. And that panic has nothing to do with science. It has to do with being seen as wrong.

No, Barney, the scientific ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

No, Barney, the scientific comunity...except for the 17,000+ mentioned in the linked article...is a bunch of sheep who know how to read expense reports and fill out grant requests far too well.

bryanD, I don't recall any ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

bryanD, I don't recall any Global Warming(TM) sceptics claiming that there isn't any warming going on at all, just that if there is we had no role in causing it. If you are correct, I'm sure you could find some quotes, links, etc to support your assertion, right?

The global warming hype/myt... (Below threshold)
Jo:

The global warming hype/myth is being debunked daily. It's sinking fast. The libs better come up with a new "fear" to get people in their camp.

Does anyone remember Sir... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Does anyone remember Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein trying to get people to buy into their scientific theories by coming up with doomsday scenarios? No, of course not.
John Hawkins

I do (not first hand of course).

Read these letters Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt to warn him of the potential for nuclear bombs.

Now, we know Einstein had science behind. I'm still not convinced that global warming is catastrophic, but I do think man has the capacity to affect the global climate and may be contributing to natural cycles. Where this gets us in 100-200 years, I have no idea. But I'd rather work towards reducing fossil fuel use for a number of reasons (energy security, improved air quality, technological advancement, etc.) than simply stick my head in the sand.

There are many example thro... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

There are many example throughout history, particularly western Christian, where science was repressed. Anyone hear of the dark ages?

Christian bigotry still exists today...

That's why christian nations were the last to advance medically, agriculturally, and the last to walk on the moon.

What's is like being a living joke.

It's heretical, I know, but... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

It's heretical, I know, but the article that persuaded me that global warming WAS real, and WAS caused by humans, is this one...

THE ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE ERA BEGAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO

Good, hard, solid science... and it convinced me that if it WEREN'T for human-caused methane emissions warming the planet, NE Canada would be under glaciers at this point.

Science. It's great stuff. However - you've got to look at the WHOLE picture when it comes to Global Warming, otherwise you're taking a few years and extrapolating curves which don't have any relation to reality.

sean, if the goals you woul... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

sean, if the goals you would like us to get to, i.e. energy security, improved air quality, technological advancement, etc, are so desirable, why can't they be advanced on their own merits? I'd love to see us improve in all those areas, but I don't think we need to scare and lie to people to get there.

brainy435 typed: "I don't r... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

brainy435 typed: "I don't recall any Global Warming(TM) sceptics claiming that there isn't any warming going on at all"

About 2 years ago, the pundits on radio (Rush, etc) surrendered the "no warming at all" meme, to the "no man made warming" meme. And Bush is now joining the man-made warming side. It's political gradualism.

Everybody (politically aware) knows the ups and downs of the debate on this one, so I'll let you do the googling.

Einstein also sought contra... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Einstein also sought contradictory evidence. He was fervent about seeking out proof that might disprove his hypotheses --- something the AGW crowd does NOT remotely support.
-=Mike

I'm too tired to argue toda... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I'm too tired to argue today, so here's something to makes me laugh.

Has anyone noticed the left... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Has anyone noticed the lefties have yet to address the 10 basic, very basic if the science is sound, questions?

Thats because to date, the scientists, politicians, and activists pounding the drum for man-made global warming don't have answers for those ten questions.

Further, no mathematical model (which is being used to predict temperatures 100-200 years out) has shown itself to be even close against actual historical data points.

This is not surprising, given that there are thousands of variables, and we haven't even begun to address the Earth System's capability to utilize the natural processes inherent in the global warming debate to "stabilize" the climate within rather narrow historical parameters.

Until the "man-made GW" science crowd can answer these basic questions, I think I'll hold off on triggering a US inspired global recession.

BTW, per the 10 questions, Mars is heating up as well. Why?

Does anyone remember Sir Is... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Does anyone remember Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein trying to get people to buy into their scientific theories by coming up with doomsday scenarios? No, of course not.
John Hawkins

Sean NYC: "I do (not first hand of course).

Read these letters Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt to warn him of the potential for nuclear bombs."

See Sean, this is a perfect example of why you are still out to lunch on man-made GW.

In Einsteins case, the mathematics were well founded, experiments were devised to test the mathematics (proven correct), and these results were well understood by leading theoriticians who could replicate the experiments which validated the math.

Guess what's missing from this debate?

Yep. All the math that is verifiable, testable, and repeatable.

Other than that, it's all "real" science for sure.

Do I think the Earth is warming mildly? Yes. Why? Because the Earth has been warming for quite sometime (as in, well before SUV's).

I can accept that global wa... (Below threshold)
Burt:

I can accept that global warming is happening. I can even admit that mankind is at least partially responsible for it. What I have difficulty accepting is that with the coming 20 foot rise in sea levels, my tax dollars are still being used to rebuild a city that is 17 foot below present sea level.

Barney - the IPCC report is... (Below threshold)
SunSetSam:

Barney - the IPCC report is NOT a research report. It is a political report for review by governments to edit (spin) before the actual report is out. Your massive ignorance on this topic is breathtaking (& yes I am an environmental scientist doing emission and climate change modeling).

What bryanD said:Eve... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

What bryanD said:
Everybody (politically aware) knows the ups and downs of the debate on this one, so I'll let you do the googling."

What bryanD meant:
I'm talkin out o' my ass here and can't back up any of my assertions, so I'll bow out now.

The IPCC Summary does not m... (Below threshold)
SunSetSam:

The IPCC Summary does not make clear that the warming in the first half of the century was attributed to the sun being hotter. The human component (if you believe the models) are at the low end of the projected warming. The scaremongering comes in when jumping to the conclusion that there are going to be disasters on a cosmic scale due to CO2. Huh? There is no proven science yet (many theories though) that shows that an increase in trace atmospheric CO2 gas causes more warming.

The real news in the curren... (Below threshold)
SunSetSam:

The real news in the current IPCC Summary is that various results of global warming have been estimated to be less than previously stated in the last IPCC Report. I expect the next report in a few years will show even less impact by anthropogenic sources to global warming. So the libs may have a small window to get those carbon taxes in place, which is the real reason for all of this scaremongering.

Weren't the leftwing weenie... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Weren't the leftwing weenies screaming about the coming "Ice Age" about 20-30 years ago? WTF happened to that?

Krauthammer -- let's keep g... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Krauthammer -- let's keep giving him chances -- maybe one day he'll be correct on one thing.

See Sean, this is a perf... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

See Sean, this is a perfect example of why you are still out to lunch on man-made GW.
Drago

Why? I was disproving the statement made in Lorie's post. Was I correct in that regard?

Also, I later admit I also am skeptical about the catastrophic potential of global warming, but I do think man may be contributing to the process. The science is debatable on both sides (ie I don't fully trust the feedback loop models or the excuse that it's simply the sun, with no other contributions). Pinpoint exactly where I am "out to lunch".

if the goals you would like us to get to, i.e. energy security, improved air quality, technological advancement, etc, are so desirable, why can't they be advanced on their own merits?
brainy435

To put it simply, money. All those factor are desirable, but money is still the driver for both corporate and individual interests. This is where gov't is supposed to play a role because it does not have a profit motive.

"Barney - the IPCC report i... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Barney - the IPCC report is NOT a research report." SSS

When did I mention the IPCC report? How about never. Are you telling me that scientist are not writing, reading, testing and reviewing papers/studies? And you call yourself a scientist?

Brainy, the '1700' crap again. That was debunked long ago.

sean: There is no money to ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

sean: There is no money to be made in energy dependance or technological advancement? Do you really believe that?

Barney, man, you almost have to be some smart-ass doing a lib parody for our amusement. "Brainy, the '1700' crap again. That was debunked long ago." You include that gem in a post discussing how libs are refusing to debate and instead insist that what they believe is just the way it is and if you disagree you are dumb. Pricelessly idiotic.

Oh, and your number was off by more than a factor of 10. Hilariously ironic.

Sean: "Why? I was disprovin... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Sean: "Why? I was disproving the statement made in Lorie's post. Was I correct in that regard?"

I don't think so, and let me explain. As I understood this remark, you were addressing Einsteins "warnngs" about Hitler's attempt to develop nuclear weaps as an example of a scientist who was using a sort of doomsday scenario to get the government of the US to do something.

I don't disagree with that. However, the difference between a situation where the science was mathematically irrefutable, testable, and reproducible is so different from this as to render the analogy inoperative.

However, I wouldn't get too hung up on this disagreement.

Sean: "Also, I later admit I also am skeptical about the catastrophic potential of global warming, but I do think man may be contributing to the process."

That's part of the whole question, isn't it. How much warming is going on? How unusual is this warming (if occurring)? Is it a bad thing or a good thing? If bad, how are you determining whether or not it's a bad thing or a good thing? How much of a bad thing is it? How much control do we have over this? Assuming all the previous questions are answered in a way that "justifies" actions, have we determined if our actions will cause greater harm than good? How do we know?

None of these questions have been properly addressed by the man-made GW crowd.

Sean: "The science is debatable on both sides.."

False. Only one side is making an assertion. The burden of scientific proof is upon them (and so far, the results are not even close to being delivered.)

Sean: "...(ie I don't fully trust the feedback loop models or the excuse that it's simply the sun, with no other contributions)."

Why? Keep your answer mathematically valid and testable, else your just going on your feelings. Not very "scientific.

Sean: "Pinpoint exactly where I am "out to lunch"."

Oh, that related to the first answer above where I was addressing your analogy of Einstein warning of German development of the bomb (solid, testable science), vs man-made GW (unproven mathematically, untestable (so far))

SunSetSam: "There is no pro... (Below threshold)
Drago:

SunSetSam: "There is no proven science yet (many theories though) that shows that an increase in trace atmospheric CO2 gas causes more warming."

Sunset, it may interest you to know that are actual theories by actual scientists from actual reputable groups and Universities that assert that increasing CO2 is a necessary factor in the Earths System of LIMITING how warm the planet becomes. Get's fairly technical, but there is as much evidence for that as for the man-made GW crowd.

However, there aren't any Governments making political grants for that kind of study since naturally, the if found to be accurate, it would sort of negate the whole "we're from the Gov't and we REALLY neet to control your lives now" scenario.

Plus, Rosie is butt-ugly, a... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Plus, Rosie is butt-ugly, and that makes it hard to get beyond to other things.

There is no money to be ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

There is no money to be made in energy dependance or technological advancement? Do you really believe that?
brainy435

No, just the margins aren't as high and we've already made the capital investments for the infrastructure. Oil and coal see profit immediately while the return on investment for alternative energy sources are years, maybe decades away.

Drago,
Does anyone remember Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein trying to get people to buy into their scientific theories by coming up with doomsday scenarios?

My refutation of this statement was not about how much scientific data there was to support it or not. Clearly, Einstein had much more evidence than global warming proponents do now. I was just pointing out that this statement was false.

However, the difference between a situation where the science was mathematically irrefutable, testable, and reproducible is so different from this as to render the analogy inoperative.

Fine, but remember it was this Hawkins character who decided to bring Einstein into it, not me. I'm glad we both think he's wrong for associating this topic with Einstein.

None of these questions have been properly addressed by the man-made GW crowd

I for the most part agree, and that is why I think we should pursue alternative energy sources for energy security, improved air quality, and technological advancement (also better standing in foreign policy) rather than saying "if we don't, we all die". I disagree with that idea completely, but that does not mean I disagree with the potential solutions associated with the GW crowd to address the problem (but I will add here that I don't grasp the concept of carbon offsets, they're complete bunk in my mind).

Only one side is making an assertion.

This is also false. For a while (probably still to this day), there were definitely assertions that man had nothing to do with global warming, if global warming existed at all. Many have backed off that as evidence continues to come in that the earth is in fact getting hotter, and only now are they showing skepticism. But I agree that the burden is to prove man contributes to global warming, not the other way around.

Why?

Why don't I trust the models and the "sun-only" explanation? For several reasons. First, models are only simulations and the earth is a very complex system (however, we must remember that in some systems they are very accurate and that is why we generally do trust them). I've heard someone say that if there are 50 variables, all 99% accurate, this only gives you a 60% chance your result is right. Now this is a very rough estimation, but you get the general idea. Second, the feedback mechanisms built into the models are not fully understood and it is these mechanisms that lead to the run-away warming and 20 ft rise in sea level. Third, with regard to the "sun-only" rationale, we have seen throughout human history that we as a species can have an impact on the earth (CFCs depleting the ozone layer, acid rain, leaded gasoline, dead zones in the ocean, building of dams/channels affecting silt run-off, irrigation, and I could go on). With the amount of emissions we put into the air, it would naturally follow that this would have an effect. This may just be a feeling, but the "sun-only" explanation is also in many ways.

Keep your answer mathematically valid and testable, else your just going on your feelings. Not very "scientific.

That is what scientists are trying to do, just they can't fully explain the entire system to degree of accuracy we can accept. Time will go on and we will better understand and model the system (after all, there is no way to construct a new earth to test every variable, although I know there are some experiments testing variables individually or in small numbers). One day, we might reach a result that is more scientifically sound than where we are today and one side or the other will be convinced.

sean, energy dependance cou... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

sean, energy dependance could also come in the form of domestic oil drilling. It would also be immensely profitable. If energy dependance is the goal, and global warming(TM) is just a means to get there, why are we not allowing oil companies to drill domestically?

Do you suppose "the view" w... (Below threshold)
Rich:

Do you suppose "the view" was set up as revenge for talk radio? Here you have two-three unhinged and relatively ignorant lefties, shouting down a level-headed by clearly outnumbered "right-leaning" member of the group. I think this is the left acting out their own sense of powerlessness in the face of reasoned arguments - shout it down, make up fantasies or employ moral equivalences.

energy dependance could ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

energy dependance could also come in the form of domestic oil drilling. It would also be immensely profitable. If energy dependance is the goal, and global warming(TM) is just a means to get there, why are we not allowing oil companies to drill domestically?
brainy435

To steal a slogan, we need to get "beyond petroleum". You're right that we could allow much more extensive domestic drilling, but our known reserves could get us a few extra years, and that's it. Plus, there are NIMBY and environmental concerns and tremendous increases in cost to access harder to reach deposits. This is not to say we shouldn't increase domestic production, it's certainly one thing I'd be willing to compromise on if we truly began to pursue energy independence.

The predominant theme in th... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

The predominant theme in the comments has been about global warming. You've...got...to be...kidding me.

No, not an immediate threat. Period.

Oh, BTW: Hi, female British soldier forced to cover her head and rest of her body. Soldiers paraded on TV. Forced confessions. Hello, violations and severe breach of the Geneva Conventions. Yes, THOSE Geneva Conventions. Where's the liberal caterwauling and uproar? Human rights groups, UN, where are you? Hello? Hello? Anybody?

The libs better come up ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The libs better come up with a new "fear" to get people in their camp.

Hi, Sock Puppet Jo! How's this for a fear... "if we don't fight them there, we'll be fighting them here". Maybe one of your sock puppets has a good one they can share? But I digress...

Weren't the leftwing wee... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Weren't the leftwing weenies screaming about the coming "Ice Age" about 20-30 years ago?

No, they weren't.

Thought experiment: Bring i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States was just attacked by people mostly from one country, organized by people from that country, financed by people from that country, and the organizers were being harbored by another country. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle... those countries and the people responsible for the attack, or another wholly uninvolved country? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

If they're on such rock ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If they're on such rock solid scientific ground, why doesn't the science speak for itself?

It does, which is why the vast majority of the scientific community accepts it. It's not that the issue is settled 100%, but that it's settled 9x%. And science, unlike political correctness, is obligated to ignore that x%.

Never mind the fact that the Hawkins article that you link to has some of the stupidest statements I've ever heard on the issue, such as:

"For most of its history until fairly recent times, the general pattern was for earth to be hot with no permanent ice anywhere." -- P.427

...

That would seem to suggest that despite everything we hear about the "hottest temperatures on record," the global temperature is significantly cooler than it has been throughout much of earth's history.

So we should be comparing the climate today to when the earth was a 200 degree volcanic wasteland with an atmosphere of ammonia and methane?

Geneva Conventions? HAH! We... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Geneva Conventions? HAH! We don't need no stinking Geneva Conventions!

They are SO 20th century. C'mon Peter, we trashed those babies when we started Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, rendering, etc. Don't think we should be howling too loudly about them right about now. Hey, whose turn is it next to ride the waterboard? Step right up.

Someone give bryanDirtbag a... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Someone give bryanDirtbag and grouchy a new recipe for their meth. Man have been in a bad batch.

groucho:*sigh* Aga... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

groucho:

*sigh* Again...please point to the signatures of any and all known terrorist groups or organizations--particularly those held at Gitmo or AG or in rendition--who've signed the GC and are therefore granted the protections under them. When you find them, let me know. Maybe Barney can help you look, too.

Funny, Iran signed them in 1948. But apparently they don't feel they need to oblige by them--even though the current prisoners were wearing the uniforms of their country that has signed the GC and are therefore internationally recognized and granted the protections under the GC.

P.S. When's the last time a terrorist organization returned one of our men or women in uniform who's heads were still attached to their bodies.

So we'll show them by lower... (Below threshold)
groucho:

So we'll show them by lowering ourselves to their standards. Great idea. How's it working so far?

Terror + Torture = more terror and torture.

Maybe if we (this administration) were a little smarter they would have figured that out by now. Where's OBL? Afghan Taliban is activity on the rise. Find them and kill them; no problems with that. We've picked the wrong fight and are doing a poor job of managing it as well.

How's it working so far?... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

How's it working so far?

Pretty damn well, actually. KSM sure sung like a bird; so have many others. And I have ZERO problem with allegedly (the right word, as you have NO proof of it) torturing terrorists, especially if saves even YOUR neck.

You really think OBL is the end all be all or terrorism; that he is the lone source of it all; we get him it's all over. Even you're not THAT deluded.

We've picked the wrong fight and are doing a poor job of managing it as well.

Maybe you are deluded. We didn't pick the fight, the Islamofascists picked us. We didn't send planes into building, we didn't bomb embassies in Africa, or murder Olympic athletes or take 55 Americans hostage for 444 days. You get and keep that much that straight, buddy boy.

The Martian scenario... (Below threshold)
suhnami:


The Martian scenario had spin designed to justify your means. Aside from feeling that martians should be used to prove a point, It should be pointed out to the martian we were attacked by a horrible man in which our leader claimed we would get 'dead or alive' and we would 'smoke em out'. Then we started a war against another horrible man which didn't have anything to do with the attack, but as suggested had some sweet oil. This war was supposed to pay for itself, last maybe '6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months' and was also at one point was in its last throws.

I'm no liberal, but I would just like to see something told to me be delivered. I'm simply dissapointed. I would also like to not here how 'clinton had 8 years to catch obl and bush had x years'. Oh wait, he's had 6.... hmmmmm what will people be saying after the 8th year.

Anyhoo, yes Rosie is an idiot. One idiot liberal doesn't mean they all think that way. Hell, Ted Bundy was a Republican... so what.....

GW seems to be the hot topic here, so not much I can add here. I think we as a nation could be more responsible and use our resources more wisely. Every glutunous empire falls. Every single one.

Maybe you are deluded. W... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Maybe you are deluded. We didn't pick the fight, the Islamofascists picked us. We didn't send planes into building, we didn't bomb embassies in Africa, or murder Olympic athletes or take 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.

Umm, neither did Iraq. Maybe you are deluded.

Brain,Per usual, y... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Brain,

Per usual, your "analysis: lacks seriousness and thought, and relevant context.

Seems you're still of the thought that Iraq and the threat of Islmaofacism are somehow separate. I wish you luck in explaining that to your grandchildren should they one day ask you...

"Every glutunous empire fal... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Every glutunous empire falls"

Yup, the Criminal Clinton's and their party of Rat's fell like cement heads.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy